We will start withdrawing from Iraq by Summer 2006

Post by **Fender** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:39 pm

One of the points the author brings up in this:

http://www.reason.com/rauch/120505.shtml

Pretty short read, with some interesting points.

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:26 pm

so a majority of americans supported the war in the first place for lousy reasons, now they support withdrawal for equally bad reasons, to wit -

The public will not support a military operation that it has come to regard as social work on the behalf of Iraqis, rather than security work on the behalf of Americans.

in point of fact it's neither, but the author has clearly bought into the propaganda himself, with talk of "Bush's democracy agenda" (never existed) and his claim that "Bush says the U.S. presence in Iraq is essential to fighting terrorism. That was a strong argument for a while..." (it was never a strong argument)

this made me lol:

David Winston, the president of the Winston Group, a Republican polling and strategy organization, argues that the public still supports the mission in Iraq but that the administration needs to do a better job of explaining what it has accomplished and how it plans to succeed.

this winston guy clearly thinks the war is just a PR problem, nothing more

Post by **MidnightQ4** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:48 pm

I'm trying to understand the anti-war point of view, but I kinda just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Specifically I would like to know what they think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please. Don't you think that down the road that would be a mistake?

I for one do not want to wait until we have a nukes blowing up our cities to do something about it. An ounce of prevention...

I mean I know that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but is that really a chance we are prepared to take?

Post by **4days** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:41 pm

MidnightQ4 wrote:I'm trying to understand the anti-war point of view, but I kinda just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Specifically I would like to know what they think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please. Don't you think that down the road that would be a mistake?

I for one do not want to wait until we have a nukes blowing up our cities to do something about it. An ounce of prevention...

I mean I know that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but is that really a chance we are prepared to take?

lol, are you taking the piss?

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:58 pm

MidnightQ4 wrote:I'm trying to understand the anti-war point of view, but I kinda just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Specifically I would like to know what they think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please. Don't you think that down the road that would be a mistake?

I for one do not want to wait until we have a nukes blowing up our cities to do something about it. An ounce of prevention...

I mean I know that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but is that really a chance we are prepared to take?

by the sounds of it, explaining the anti-war pov to you would be a mammoth undertaking. you seem to find the idea of countries "doing as they please" intolerable, which leaves me wondering wtf you think the US has been doing all these years

i can probably sum up the anti-war position with a rhetorical question: what right does the US or anyone else have to interfere with, dictate to, not to mention bomb & slaughter the people of, any country it pleases, for any reason it pleases, at any time it pleases?

or perhaps you can treat that a real question and answer it, because i find the pro-war pov as utterly baffling as you apparently find the anti-war view

Post by **menkent** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:58 pm

self-government, i'd imagine. a case of "the brown leading the brown." sounds scary.

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:17 pm

"the white leading the brown" hasn't exactly been a sparkling success story either

Post by **menkent** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:43 pm

whatchootalkinbout? it was working out swimmingly (for the colonists) until the brown people started demanding that we treat them like humans.

Post by **bitWISE** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:04 pm

Like characters in the book The Religion War suggested, there are only two way to solve the problem. Extermination or changing opinions. Until the rest of the world is able to see through their delusions the conflict will never end.

Post by **YourGrandpa** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:37 am

MidnightQ4 wrote:I'm trying to understand the anti-war point of view, but I kinda just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Specifically I would like to know what they think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please. Don't you think that down the road that would be a mistake?

I for one do not want to wait until we have a nukes blowing up our cities to do something about it. An ounce of prevention...

I mean I know that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but is that really a chance we are prepared to take?

The problem is, no one has a viable solution, only endless criticism. Saddam wouldn't comply with UN inspections and in the late 90's shot at UN aircraft in international air space. He should have been taken out then. What else can you do with a lunatic like this? Do you let him continue defying the UN, continue his genocidal rampage and repeatedly break treaty agreements. There was no easy fix to the problems he was causing, because you couldn't negotiate with him. There's no easy fix for any of the problems in the middle east. Especially when the peoples major motivation to kill one another is based on religous beliefs and they are willing to die in the name of their god at the drop of hat. But none of this can be overlooked or simply ignored under the pretence that it's none of our bussiness. Situations like this and others that are brewing need to be, at the very least, contained. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, but quite likely make it worse. If Saddam was left to his own demise his rain of terror and international defiance would have contined under the rule of his even more unstable offspring. He had to be removed. It's just too bad it has to be at the expense of so many lives.

Post by **Tormentius** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:35 am

YourGrandpa wrote:
Situations like this and others that are brewing need to be, at the very least, contained.

Maybe you can comfort yourself with that when the next generations who have had their lives and families ravaged by this massacre and have nothing left to lose come knocking.

Post by **Ryoki** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:08 am

Seremtan owned this thread.

Post by **Dave** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:14 am

We wouldn't even be in Iraq right now if Britain hadn't colonized Iraq to begin with. Thanks Britain

Post by **Dave** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:21 am

Britain and the United States. Two countries separated by common blunders

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:30 am

Ryoki wrote:Seremtan owned this thread.

thats a first

Post by **hate** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:40 am

gramps is right

unfortunately

Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:48 am

Replace "Saddam" with "The US" in Gramps' post and watch what changes. That's right, just about nothing.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:58 am

Nightshade wrote:Replace "Saddam" with "The US" in Gramps' post and watch what changes. That's right, just about nothing.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:59 am

hate wrote:gramps is right

unfortunately

Too much glue sniffin for you, fagg0t.

Post by **seremtan** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:49 pm

Nightshade wrote:Replace "Saddam" with "The US" in Gramps' post and watch what changes. That's right, just about nothing.

exactly what i was thinking. it's a heavily-edited and blue-penciled version of reality

Post by **seremtan** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:55 pm

Dave wrote:We wouldn't even be in Iraq right now if Britain hadn't colonized Iraq to begin with. Thanks Britain

you mean: british decolonisation of the middle east gave the US a perfect opportunity to move in and take their place as the colonial power, of their own volition. you weren't forced to start interfering in the middle east any more than the UK was

Post by **Dave** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:19 pm

seremtan wrote:
Dave wrote:We wouldn't even be in Iraq right now if Britain hadn't colonized Iraq to begin with. Thanks Britain
you mean: british decolonisation of the middle east gave the US a perfect opportunity to move in and take their place as the colonial power, of their own volition. you weren't forced to start interfering in the middle east any more than the UK was

blah blah blah national pride blah blah blah... it's equally your cuntry's fault, deal with it. Like I said, two nations seperated by common blunders...

Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:20 pm

Shall we discuss Israel/Palestine and Asia, then? :icon26:

Post by **seremtan** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:24 pm

Dave wrote:blah blah blah national pride blah blah blah... it's equally your cuntry's fault, deal with it. Like I said, two nations seperated by common blunders...

, on so many levels

Post by **Pext** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:36 pm

MidnightQ4 wrote:I'm trying to understand the anti-war point of view, but I kinda just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Specifically I would like to know what they think would happen if we leave countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. to do as they please. Don't you think that down the road that would be a mistake?

I for one do not want to wait until we have a nukes blowing up our cities to do something about it. An ounce of prevention...

I mean I know that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq, but is that really a chance we are prepared to take?

moron